The Trouble With Science

Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That?) posted an article entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton. Crichton presented the lecture on January 17, 2003 -- a decade ago. Watts posted the article in 2010, but I just discovered it. I'm posting this here now because it explains so well the objections I have had to junk science being used to drive faulty public policy and governmental malpractice.

Michael Crichton is of course a well known science fiction writer, known for Westworld, The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, and many others. But he is also a strong critic of junk science and the devolution of science for political ends. He presented many lectures in support of good science. Crichton attended Harvard Medical School, and was a medical doctor. 

Joy To The World -- Part 2

In Joy To The World -- Part 0, I noted that the opposite of Joy isn't sorrow or sadness, joy is the absence of fear.

Two of the most joyous stories in history -- of lasting joy -- are the story of Christmas, and the story of liberty and freedom. I celebrated the story of Christmas in Joy To The World -- Part 1. This is the story of Freedom.

Thomas Jefferson may have said it better than anyone before or since, in The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This passage in The Declaration of Independence represents some of the fundamental principles from The Age of Enlightenment, but in itself does not specify any particular form of government. That came later.

Prior to the implementation of The Constitution of the United States, few governments had any written specification that enumerates the powers of government, nor any Bill of Rights. Subjects lived in fear of what the government might do to them (so rarely do they think of what the government might do for them). The constitutionally enumerated powers is the list of things the government does for us -- because we authorize it (or ask it) on our behalf, so that we can mind our own business. The Bill of Rights lists a few of the things that no good government would ever do to us. 

The Constitution represents one of the first attempts to standardize liberty and justice for all. Being written down in the form of a contract, in plain English, any literate citizen can read and understand what it says, and what it means. Consisting of 4543 words, a person can read it in one evening. ObamaCare, by contrast is approximately 2.8 million words, and counting. Do you have any fear that some of those words might affect you adversely? It certainly does not fill me with joy!

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. ~ James Madison

Ya think? The sheer number of bureaucracies that will spring up to implement this ObamaCare monstrosity will dwarf the EPA, which is one of our more oppressive and unconstrained bureaucracies. 

The best way to reduce fear is to give people more options, more control over their own lives. When are we the most fearful? When things are going out of control, like stepping on the brakes on an icy road, careening towards a fiscal cliff. When are we the most joyful? When we manage to stop without flying into the abyss. Of course, there are many things in our lives that we can't control, but government needn't be one of them.

I used to think The Constitution would protect me. It will, but only if We the People insist on it. That hasn't been happening lately. The Constitution can't uphold and defend itself. The American form of government has constitutional protections on our individual rights. Having blown right past the enumerated powers, our government is now eating away at the fringes (infringing) on our Bill of Rights.

I fear that too few voters know what it means to live in a free country. In other words, they have no idea what the difference is between being a citizen and being a subject. If we hope to restore this nation to its full potential, we classical liberals must teach the next generation about the joy of self-determination and individualism.

Principled Legislators

There are still a few legislators out there who are not self-serving vote hustlers. They became legislators to serve the citizens and, swimming against the stream, restore government to its proper role of protecting our natural rights -- instead of the unauthorized role of controlling others and redistributing wealth. They deserve our thanks and support. I'm sure they'd appreciate some support; it's pretty lonely in Olympia for classical liberals.

From their Facebook page:

Making lower taxes, less government, and more freedom a reality since 2012... at the state and local level. If freedom is worth dying for it is worth voting for. Join the fight for freedom today!

Our mission is to restore a constitutional State of Washington based on the Republican form of guaranteed under Article IV, Section4 of The Constitution of the United States, so that our children and grandchildren can live in peace and prosperity and freedom.

 They have an agenda, but it's pro-liberty (unlike some other well-known agendas in the news lately) :

Lower Taxes
1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. 2/3rds Requirement to Raise Taxes Amendment
3. Protect Small Farms and Businesses (More to Follow)
4. Relieve the Tax Burden on Working Families (More to Follow)

Less Government
5. Regulatory Reform and Fairness Act
6. Protect Private Property Rights (More to Follow)
7. Save our Homes Act (Reducing Property Tax Penalties)
8. Healthcare Freedom Act (Opt Washington Out of Obamacare)
9. Energy Freedom Act (Opt Out of Cap & Trade, Cease Membership in WCI)

More Freedom
10. Protecting the Right to Life (More to Follow)
11. Constitutional Currency Restoration Act
12. Firearms Freedom Act (CCL Expiration Notification and Location Clarification)
13. Protect Right of Conscientious Objection(More to Follow)
14. Ensure Free, Fair, Accurate Elections (More to Follow)
15. Protect Civil Liberties (More to Follow)
16. Protect Food Freedom (More to Follow)

It's a pleasure to report things like this. This is precisely what I had in mind with my New Enlightenment initiative.

Hi Mom!

The Bellingham Herald printed an article about The Whatcom Tea Party, in which this blog is mentioned. So now, even more than my immediate family will see this! Oh, and my name might have come up too. Just sharing...

For the record, I am a Citizen Journalist. This blog is in no way affiliated with The Whatcom Tea Party. If you want to know what The Whatcom Tea Party officially thinks about anything, visit their website. If you want to know what individual tea partiers may be thinking, like them on facebook.

I'm Okay! (The Asteroid Missed Me)

It turns out the Mayan calendar is just like our Gregorian calendars that end every year. Nothing happens. It's a human invention. It has relevance to us, but the universe could not care less. The good and the bad stuff that happens to us seems to occur randomly with respect to our calendars.

Don't You Just Hate Rush Limbaugh?

Rush Limbaugh said this on his radio program yesterday (he's talking about what it means to live in a "free" country):

What is abundantly clear now is that our government, federal and state, no longer exist for the people. The reality now is the people exist for the government. Whether you like it that way or not is not the point. The point is the Rubicon has now been crossed. We all work in service to the government at all levels. That's how government sees it. That's how the president sees it; that's how senators see it. That's how state legislators see it and governors see it.

Our income is not ours. Our property is not ours. Our work isn't ours. The government has first claim to all of it -- whether in the form of income, real property, guns, whatever. The government now claims the authority to both dictate and ban -- and there seem to be no avenues to stop this, and there's no opposition to it. The Republicans in Washington are rallying around failure at this point. Obama equals failure. The Republicans are rallying around it.

Now Republicans all across the country are even talking like the Democrats. "We must have a balanced approach. We must tax the rich. We must penalize those people who haven't paid their fair share. We must go get additional 'revenue' from those who have more than they need." Republicans and Democrats alike are now using this language, and what the language means is that our income isn't ours, our property isn't ours.

We exist for the government.

The government no longer exists for us.

It's the other way around.

Don't you just hate Rush Limbaugh?

I'm not "rich", but I don't hate the rich. I don't think they owe me anything. A "rich" man (or a richer man than I) has signed my paychecks since I started working full-time in 1978. In the five or six jobs I've had in my career, I worked for him, he paid me. We're even. Hell, one of my employers even paid me while I was sick in the hospital for six weeks, and my sick leave had run out, and I had burned off all my vacation. He said, "Don't worry about it. You just get better. We'll cover for you". (Thank you, Dale Peterson, wherever you are!)

Pay their fair share, my good right... left. These people give more to this country than Barack Obama could ever imagine. Are some of them jerks? Sure! Are some of them greedy pigs? Of course! That's the beauty of the free market. People acting in their own self interest promote prosperity, and do good for society without being told to. Without being forced by government. It happens automatically. It self-regulates, at least as well as government ever possibly could. Wealth redistributes itself, at least as evenly as government ever possibly could. Can't you see it? Go freedom!

Joy To The World -- Part 1

In Joy To The World -- Part 0, I noted that the opposite of Joy isn't sorrow or sadness, joy is the absence of fear.

Two of the most joyous stories in history -- of lasting joy -- are the story of Christmas, and the story of liberty and freedom. This is the story of Christmas.



Linus is reciting from Luke 2:8~14, which includes,

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 

 Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

No doubt the Jews of the day took this to mean another political, military and spiritual leader who would throw off their Roman oppressors and give them the @$$-kicking they so richly deserve -- someone along the lines of Moses or David. However, as Jesus grew to adulthood, it became evident that he took scant interest in issues political and military. It was more along the lines of, "yes, you're oppressed, but pretty soon you'll be dead, and that's where the real trouble starts". 

It was more along these lines (John 3:16):

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For a bunch of humans who could never live up to the ten commandments, this removed a big element of fear. This is not some superstitious mumbo-jumbo, although it is often interpreted that way.  Sometimes, the words get in the way of big concepts. As my son Arthur simply put it, "If you stand with Jesus, you'll have the strength to face death." (he's home schooled).

To put a little different perspective on it, none of us has any experience with not being alive. We don't remember anything at birth or before, and only one person has ever reported back to humanity what it's like after death. It's scary. Fearsome, even. Having a way to face death would remove that fear. Joy!

In Joy To The World -- Part 2, I'll talk about liberty and freedom.

Flash Mob

Well Done! We need more of this. Merry Christmas Everyone!

The Slaughter of Innocents

"The Slaughter of Innocents" is the headline on Drudge today. It pretty well describes the horrific massacre at the school in Connecticut where a lone gunman killed his mother and 20 kinder-gardeners.  I am stunned and saddened. The poor parents. The poor kids that had to watch. The victims, who had to suffer. The sheer terror of it all.

Pundits are blaming video games, television, the goth culture, bullying, and of course guns. Everything except the person responsible (or irresponsible). This is not normal behavior for human beings. Killing oneself is especially peculiar. Yet, many of these tragedies end in suicide. It's a pattern. If psychology really is a science (I'm skeptical about that, but hopeful in this case), then it ought to be able to identify and classify personality traits that are predictors of this kind of behavior. Making reliable predictions is what real science is able to do. We should be able to treat afflicted individuals without infringing on their inalienable rights.

There seems to have been an up-tick in the reporting, if not the incidence of these kinds of tragedies. We really need to focus what would make a person feel compelled, or think it's OK to kill innocent human beings. In addition to the usual suspects (television, video games, guns), we'd better include environmental extremists, who tell us that humans are the worst thing for the planet, and Senator Barack Obama, who voted for partial birth abortions, and against a measure that would have made it illegal to allow babies who survive an abortion, to die alone in hospital janitorial supply rooms. To be intellectually honest, we should at least throw those ideas into the hopper for consideration.

As one blogger pointed out, "it’s not the weapon, it’s the psychopath who preys on the undefended... it’s the reason we have the right to bear arms. Mass murders occur in places where personal arms are prohibited. In the worst cases, it’s one’s own government that’s the perpetrator." Of course, the 'progressives' will never believe this. It is the reason we must utterly defeat progressivism.

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ~ Benjamin Franklin

Maybe the coarsening of our culture goes hand-in-hand with the lessening of our freedom.

---

Update: I hate to admit it, but this article is much better than mine.

Update II: Here is more to suggest the real societal problem is how to detect and deal with dangerous mental illness:

• I Am Adam Lanza's Mother
• School adviser: Gunman a loner who felt no pain

We're wasting our time wringing our hands over gun control. We must heal the sick minds - or quarantine them. 

Letter to Senator Murray: The Fiscal Cliff

Patti Murray sent me an email containing the following:

Last week, I returned to the Senate floor to continue to put pressure on my colleagues in the House to pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Act, which the Senate passed in July. The bill would extend tax cuts for 98% of workers and 97% small business owners, and would let the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire as scheduled.  I also discussed Speaker Boehner’s recent proposal that would protect the rich from paying higher rates.  I believe the easiest way to raise revenue from the wealthiest Americans is simply to allow the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% to expire as scheduled. It would move us a long way toward the balanced and bipartisan deal we are aiming toward.

The remark about repealing the Bush tax cuts really galled me, and I'm not "rich". It doesn't affect me directly, but it does fly in the face of economic reality. So I just had to write back,

Dear Senator Murray,

Do you really think you can extract enough money from the so-called "rich" to finance your grand designs? You do realize that money redistributes itself, don't you? What do you think those rich folks would do with their money if you didn't tax it? Smoke it? No! They'd spend it! They'd invest it! And what do those activities have in common? They create new business, new jobs, innovation, and wealth. The only catch is, you have to work to participate. But jobs would be available in abundance if the government would quit erecting roadblocks and threaten the very people who are best situated to create jobs.

The simplest way to get the rich to finance your gargantuan government is to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Yeah, you just keep thinking that. You might as well try it -- the economy's already in the toilet -- and see how that works out for you (and the poor, tragically and ironically).

It's so sad to see my beloved country in a death spiral at the hands of people who haven't a clue about economics, prosperity, and liberty and justice for all.

Mitt Romney said, "I'll get this country working again!", and 51% of the electorate said, "Screw that!" I'm afraid we've passed the point of no return for a sustainable economy.

Sincerely,
Karl Uppiano

Joy To The World -- Part 0

Around Christmastime, we hear a lot about joy in songs, in Christmas cards and in church services (remember those?). What is joy? Is it like in this song?



I have to admit, this song brought me a great deal of happiness in 1970. I wore out two vinyl 45s of it (well polystyrene actually). It's one of my three favorite songs of all time (along with Hey Jude and Here Comes the Sun). But the definition of Joy online is somewhat circular. Maybe we should look at what joy isn't: The opposite of joy isn't sorrow or sadness. The opposite of joy is fear.

So those songs didn't bring me joy directly, they merely distracted me from my fears for the few minutes that it took to hear them. I think the Abbey Road version of Here Comes the Sun is musical perfection itself, and that does make me happy, masking fear and leaving joy for a few minutes.

Think about the things in life that gave you the most joy: Learning that you or a loved one had beaten cancer or some other terrible ordeal. Or that you were not going to be laid off. Or that you passed chemistry, and you could graduate after all. Or that she said, "yes" instead of "no" when you asked her to marry you. The joy comes from the removal of fear.

Two of the most joyous stories in history -- of lasting joy -- are the story of Christmas, and the story of liberty and freedom. I'll be discussing those in Joy To The World -- Part 1 and Joy To The World -- Part 2. Stay tuned.

The New Enlightenment

Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull

The American ideals of liberty and freedom were based on the principles of The Enlightenment. Thinkers such as John Locke, Sir Isaac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson influenced, and were influenced by it. The Enlightenment was based on reason, the scientific method, skepticism, and it rejected superstition. Classical liberalism grew out of The Enlightenment. 

Progressivism grew out of The Counter-Enlightenment (endarkenment?) movement. Following the tactics of Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky, 'progressives' infiltrated the schools, the unions, the media, government bureaucracy, even churches, implementing the long march through the institutions. This long march started at the end of the 19th century and continued to the present time. Based on current cultural norms, I'd say the march is largely complete. 

We (classical liberals) have to go on the offensive. We have to stop playing defense. That's a losing proposition. I’m convinced of it. Glenn Beck is that, to some degree. Michael Savage is offensive, if not effective. But maybe he’s onto something. Even Rush Limbaugh is on the offensive a lot of the time.

Here's a video that illustrates what I mean by going on the offensive:

We need more of this, and it needs to be subversive. That's right, subversive. We are the new counterculture. We need to infiltrate the schools, the unions, and the media.

Remember: except for labor unions (which have always been counter-enlightenment, based on my reading of their objectives and tactics), the 'progressives' had to infiltrate once. Now, classical liberals have to infiltrate back. The first enlightenment is over. It's time to start The New Enlightenment.

The New Enlightenment would reject centralized government and the concomitant collectivism, conformity of thought, behavior, and outcomes, environmental superstition -- and instead demand more individual liberty, diversity of thought, creativity, initiative (and risk), and restore the scientific method and healthy skepticism to our culture. Freedom is risky, but tyranny is deadly. Give me liberty, or give me death! Let's roll!

Class Warfare Works Both Ways

President Obama is trying to create a culture of makers vs. takers in this country, using the unauthorized force of government to redistribute wealth from the ones who produce it to the ones who don't. What he doesn't understand is that wealth redistributes itself! What does he think the rich do with their money? Smoke it? No, they spend it! They invest it! That spending and investing creates jobs, creates wealth, and distributes it to those who need it and want it. It isn't rocket science. Of course, it does mean that everyone has to contribute something to society in order to get a piece of the pie. Just by participating in the free market, I'm paying my "fair share". Slackers get bupkis.

Don't. Stop. Thief.

I'm not rich. I'm not even halfway to the magic $250,000.00 or whatever annual income it is that supposedly makes one rich. But I do not condone taking by force what anyone else has rightfully earned. That's called theft, and it's illegal unless you're the government. And it isn't sustainable. Too bad the takers won't even understand what caused the economic death spiral we're facing. No doubt, they'll blame it on the steadily diminishing "rich", whomever they are. In a shrinking economy, everyone has to work harder just to stay even, including the takers, who will be getting less money for nothing. In the end, the only rich people will be government employees and holders of high office -- who produce nothing, just like it was back in the USSR. I'm afraid there's no way to fix this at the ballot box anymore. The makers will have to subvert the establishment.

This class warfare works both ways. I work hard to obtain enough wealth to get what I need, and maybe a little more to enjoy life, and maybe put something away to live comfortably in my declining years. I will be most resentful of those who sabotage the economy by encouraging government forcibly to redistribute my earnings to someone who thinks they're entitled simply because I'm more industrious, more talented, luckier, or less lazy than they are. I'll happily and voluntarily share what I can afford with anyone who is down on their luck, and doesn't think I owe them anything. But the ungrateful takers can kiss my jump in a lake. I'm not uncharitable, but I'm no chump, either.

Update: Denny reminded me of this:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

~ Robert A. Heinlein

The Long March Through the Institutions

I frequently refer to "The Long March Through the Institutions", a phrase variously attributed to Antonio Gramsci, Rudi Dutschke, and possibly others who wished to establish Marxism (communism, socialism, 'progressivism' and all the other illiberal-isms) to replace classical liberalism as the dominant social and cultural norm.

Antonio Gramsci was a socialist around the turn of the 20th century. He said Americans would never accept socialism in a full frontal assault. We'd reject it. He said socialists would have to embark on "a long march through the institutions", to infiltrate the schools, the media, the churches, the bureaucracies, the unions and so on. They did that, and 100 years later, here we are, as evidenced by the 2012 election, which I believe would have been a landslide repudiation of Barack Obama a mere 20 years ago. 

The long socialist march through the institutions is complete, especially in the schools and in the media. The unions didn't need much infiltration, because they already had an entitlement mentality. The churches were tougher, because they actually taught virtue as their primary mission, but the socialists have at least managed to marginalize religion in public, and convince the faithful to ignore politics as a worldly, secular thing -- so they don't vote in numbers large enough to matter.

If we classical liberals want this country back, we are going to have to start our own long march through the institutions. We'll have to take the long view. It could take 100 years. It will require patience and perseverance. If we lose our focus, we'll lose. But as I see it, that's the only way out. I have been in denial since Ronald Reagan left office. The 2012 election jarred me back to reality, and reality bites.

It won't be enough to home school our kids, or to establish charter schools. Public schools, state universities and the Ivy League are the mainstream, and we have to infiltrate them, despite the fact that their current power structure is overtly hostile to our world view. That is precisely what Gramsci suggested, and it is precisely what we must do. It will be difficult. It will be slow. 

Liberty is maximized when self-determination rules. Too far left or too far right is oppressive. (Not to scale.)

We have to be audacious, and keep flinging classical liberal principles at the wall, knowing that they probably won't stick at first. But we have to keep throwing them up there faster than the socialists can scrape them off. In so doing, we will gradually move the window of acceptability back towards the center, where it belongs. That is precisely what the left have been doing (toward the left) for at least 50 years -- have you noticed? Audacity! The best defense is a good offense. It is the only thing that works, but it takes patience. 

Now... how do we infiltrate the institutions and begin our march? I don't know yet. But I do know that people by their very nature, just want to be free. This should be an easier sell than socialism. We are the new anti-establishment! Let's roll!

Discuss...

Twinkies Will Live On

Twinkies will live on. I predict that someone in China will make them, that's all. People keep blaming corporations and greedy capitalists for sending jobs overseas. Nope, it's the greedy 'progressives' who make doing business in America so unprofitable that no right minded businessman would embark on such a fool's errand.

People like to say "okay, maybe unions are too powerful now, but they filled a need at one time". Nope, anyone who understands the free market knows that wages and prices float to the optimal value for goods and services as long as there is competition for those goods and services.

'Progressives' point to sweatshops and child labor as justification for ignoring economic laws. Markets exist only if people are willing to participate in them. Markets represent opportunities as well as risks. When I was in high school, I was looking for child labor. I found farm work. I would have preferred factory work. A "sweatshop" if you will.

If an employer exploits his workers, there is a price to pay. It turns out, that price was the formation of unions and government regulation instead of the natural and inevitable market correction. I think those artificial measures were poor solutions, for which we are paying dearly now.

There is no way that wages would ever float to zero. Think about it: Employers need workers to produce their product. Smart workers will naturally find the employers who will pay fair market value for their services. Stupid or lazy workers might keep working for sub-standard wages, but the employer gets what he pays for, doesn't he? And it's an incentive for the stupid or lazy workers to get smarter and become more industrious.

If the fair market value for labor ever went to zero (or even if it went below the ridiculous and arbitrary minimum wage set by government in complete ignorance of the fair market value), the work force would literally die off, or leave the country, and employers would have to start paying more if they wanted to stay in business. It is simply economic reality that they would ignore at their peril.

Similarly, it is also economic reality that wages may be lower than workers might want. They can try to ignore that reality by forming unions, striking, and using other strong-arm techniques to blackmail employers into paying more for their services, but reality doesn't take a vacation. Sometimes, reality bites. And now, reality has taken a big bite out of Hostess Twinkies.

The employer, overburdened with government regulations, including ObamaCare, union demands and a down economy, has gone under, resulting in the loss of an employer, the loss of thousands of jobs nationwide, including -- eventually -- secondary and tertiary ones in related businesses. And it has deprived millions of people of the simple, if unhealthy pleasure of eating a Twinkie. The union could have helped prevent this by accepting reality and reducing its demands. Instead, it killed the goose that lays the golden eggs, and for what?

Economic laws are as real as the laws of thermodynamics, which say there is no such thing as perpetual motion. Economic laws say there is no such thing as a free lunch. But not a day passes in which some 'inventor' claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine, or some 'progressive' claims to have discovered a free lunch. Economic stimulus, strikes, and minimum wage are the same as giving the perpetual motion machine a spin. It will coast for a while, but it soon grinds to a halt. It. Doesn't. Work. I blame the schools. Way to go, 'progressives'!

How Conveeenient!

http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/

General Petraeus' extramarital affair was discovered just in time to prevent his testimony over the Benghazi affair! How long have TheRegime™ been sitting on that information? Is this a great country or what? Well... I'm starting to have my doubts. I don't condone the General's dalliances, and this just goes to show that if you don't keep your nose (and other body parts) clean, it can severely compromise your effectiveness (be it good cop or bad cop).

Which Is Worse?

Which is worse? The institutional racism of apartheid which we abolished in 1964, or the institutional racism of affirmative action, which we established at about the same time?

If the cultural racism exists that affirmative action is supposed to alleviate, it seems to me that racial quotas and preferences will do more to exacerbate this kind of racism that it will to stop it. We have all of The Constitution dedicated to equal justice -- if people would only follow it. We have a first amendment that allows people to crusade for equal justice. We have the tools, let's use them!

Valerie Jarret, Obama’s Brain

“After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” 

I hope Barack Obama fails. Period. I don't want America to fail, which is why Barack Obama must fail. Valerie Jarret articulated his mission. She is the brains behind the Obama regime, just as Karl Rove was purported to be the brains behind the GW Bush regime. The difference is, I do not think Karl Rove ever made any statement like this one.

Jarret's words are not the words of a benevolent, principled, constitutionally limited representative republic. They are the words of a tyrannical and oppressive dictator. Echoing Jarret's sentiment, during the campaign Obama said, "voting is the best revenge". The liberty-minded had better gird their loins, and anyone who needs to survive financially (that's all of us not on government entitlements) had better get into hunker-down mode, because our own government is conducting an all-out war on us.

Barack Obama's first "pants on fire moment" was at his first inauguration, when he swore to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States. A majority of American voters evidently think he should reprise that moment in January 2013. Folks, The Constitution can't uphold and defend itself. The best defense is a good offense.

It's up to us to sell the principles of liberty and freedom to the voters. I think it's an easier sell than the legalized theft that is socialism. We've already lost two or three generations, so it's time to get busy!

Tea Party: 0
Occupy Brats: 1

Fool Me Once, Shame On You! Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me!

As I write this, Mitt Romney has conceded the election to Barack Hussein Obama. I actually thought Mitt Romney might have been the optimal candidate for our time. We were interviewing for the CEO (Chief Executive) of the United States. Romney has been a very successful executive in both public and private capacity. If anyone had the know-how to turn the economy around, it was Romney. And what he lacked in reverence for the founding principles, he more than made up for by nominating Paul Ryan for VP. Ryan is a great numbers guy too. They would have made a fantastic team. Sure, Ronald Reagan was possibly more personable, and had better instincts for the founding principles, but I think one could argue that Romney's and Ryan's talents might have been more pertinent to our present situation. I think it's a horrible loss to America that they weren't elected. Given that, and how astonishingly bad Barack Obama is, it is nothing less than disgraceful that those two didn't win by the biggest landslide in history.

For the last four years, I half believed the sign,

It is now abundantly clear that it wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate self-inflicted bullet to the head.

Pundits kept saying that people bought the empty "hope and change" rhetoric, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, painted Barack Obama with their own hopes and aspirations. But now that they know who he really is, they'll reject him.

Well first of all, you would have to be willfully ignorant not to have known what Barack Obama was all about back in 2008. He wrote not one, but two "autobiographies" (most likely ghost written by none other than William Ayers), in which he described in agonizing detail exactly who he is. He hung out with the most radical racists, haters and criminals imaginable, not to mention profligate pot head slackers. You show me who your friends are, and I'll show you who you are, Barry.

But now that everyone knows who this Manchurian candidate is, we re-elected him anyway. The left excoriated Mitt Romney for saying that 47% of the citizenry were lost to him. It turns out, it is more like 51%. We now have more takers in this country than we have producers, and that is not sustainable. Can you say, "death spiral"? I knew you could...

Barack Obama is openly hostile to The Constitution, which will be nothing more than a formality in four more years (because after the election, he'll have "more flexibility"). Our Constitution can't uphold and defend itself. The fact that a majority of Americans would re-elect such a man tells me that more than half of us have no idea what it takes either.

Acting more imperial than presidential, Obama has already systematically rendered congress irrelevant, issuing rapid fire executive orders, and side-stepping every check and balance that stood in his way. The idea that more than 50% of the voters would make this man even less accountable to the people by awarding him a second term, is astounding. In four more years, this nation will be irreparably separated from the founding principles that made this the freest nation on earth.

The national debt and deficit will continue to rise, unchecked. Obama will appoint several more Supreme Court Justices (does "Justice Eric Holder" have a nice ring to it?), and of course the biggest assault on our economic and personal freedom -- ObamaCare -- will become writ in stone. We now have no chance to repeal it. And that just scratches the surface: we will get more of the same criminally negligent, if not malevolent policy such as the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, and of course, who could forget the murdered Americans in Benghazi? Their families sure won't.

Emperor Obama will continue to divide the nation by race and by class. At a campaign rally, he recently told his disciples that "voting is the best revenge". Revenge for what? Against whom? Against the people that made this nation the best hope for rags-to-riches on the planet? Against the people who made this nation the beacon for your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free? Those guys?

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, you had a good run. It was nice knowing you, but don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Make The Best Choice, Not The Perfect Choice

We don't live in a perfect world. We don't have the perfect candidates. But one of two men will in fact become president. It is inescapable. So vote for one of them, and select the least bad, or the most good candidate that will actually win. I think Bill Whittle explains the situation as clearly as it can be explained.

You don't have to complete your entire ballot. You can leave parts of it blank if you don't know all the answers. There is no penalty for turning in an incomplete ballot, but there is a huge penalty for leaving a very bad man in office. That's what I'm talking about.

Giddyap!

It's environmentally friendly too, except for the horse! Horses are less sustainable than automobiles.

Top Five Reasons to Support Romney-Ryan

Elect Romney-Ryan, or explain to your children what it was like to be free.

Thanks to Rogers for sending me this.

Tired of the Liberal Media?

I am tired of the "liberal" media, but I'm not offended by it. What offends me is their mantle of objectivity. Pretending to "journal" the happenings of the day without bias offends me.

It is very difficult to be an objective journalist. The only way I can envision that ever coming to pass would be for a news agency to adopt an affirmative action hiring program, in which an equal distribution of staff from across the political spectrum were employed.

Throughout history, newspapers made no secret of their bias, with names like, "Cayuga Republican" or, "Weekly News and Democrat". They didn't pretend to be objective. Mark Twain wrote an essay about it.

It's a chilly, rainy, autumn Saturday afternoon. Sit down by the fire, put your feet up, and when you're sitting comfortably, read on:

---

Journalism in Tennessee

by Mark Twain, ca. 1871

The editor of the Memphis Avalanche swoops thus mildly down upon a correspondent who posted him as a Radical:--"While he was writing the first word, the middle, dotting his i's, crossing his t's, and punching his period, he knew he was concocting a sentence that was saturated with infamy and reeking with falsehood."--Exchange.

I was told by the physician that a Southern climate would improve my health, and so I went down to Tennessee, and got a berth on the Morning Glory and Johnson County War-Whoop as associate editor. When I went on duty I found the chief editor sitting tilted back in a three-legged chair with his feet on a pine table. There was another pine table in the room and another afflicted chair, and both were half buried under newspapers and scraps and sheets of manuscript. There was a wooden box of sand, sprinkled with cigar stubs and "old soldiers," and a stove with a door hanging by its upper hinge. The chief editor had a long-tailed black cloth frock-coat on, and white linen pants. His boots were small and neatly blacked. He wore a ruffled shirt, a large seal-ring, a standing collar of obsolete pattern, and a checkered neckerchief with the ends hanging down. Date of costume about 1848. He was smoking a cigar, and trying to think of a word, and in pawing his hair he had rumpled his locks a good deal. He was scowling fearfully, and I judged that he was concocting a particularly knotty editorial. He told me to take the exchanges and skim through them and write up the "Spirit of the Tennessee Press," condensing into the article all of their contents that seemed of interest.

I wrote as follows:

SPIRIT OF THE TENNESSEE PRESS

The editors of the Semi-Weekly Earthquake evidently labor under a misapprehension with regard to the Dallyhack railroad. It is not the object of the company to leave Buzzardville off to one side. On the contrary, they consider it one of the most important points along the line, and consequently can have no desire to slight it. The gentlemen of the Earthquake will, of course, take pleasure in making the correction.

John W. Blossom, Esq., the able editor of the Higginsville Thunderbolt and Battle Cry of Freedom, arrived in the city yesterday. He is stopping at the Van Buren House.

We observe that our contemporary of the Mud Springs Morning Howl has fallen into the error of supposing that the election of Van Werter is not an established fact, but he will have discovered his mistake before this reminder reaches him, no doubt. He was doubtless misled by incomplete election returns.

It is pleasant to note that the city of Blathersville is endeavoring to contract with some New York gentlemen to pave its well-nigh impassable streets with the Nicholson pavement. The Daily Hurrah urges the measure with ability, and seems confident of ultimate success.

I passed my manuscript over to the chief editor for acceptance, alteration, or destruction. He glanced at it and his face clouded. He ran his eye down the pages, and his countenance grew portentous. It was easy to see that something was wrong. Presently he sprang up and said:

"Thunder and lightning! Do you suppose I am going to speak of those cattle that way? Do you suppose my subscribers are going to stand such gruel as that? Give me the pen!"

I never saw a pen scrape and scratch its way so viciously, or plow through another man's verbs and adjectives so relentlessly. While he was in the midst of his work, somebody shot at him through the open window, and marred the symmetry of my ear.

"Ah," said he, "that is that scoundrel Smith, of the Moral Volcano--he was due yesterday." And he snatched a navy revolver from his belt and fired--Smith dropped, shot in the thigh. The shot spoiled Smith's aim, who was just taking a second chance and he crippled a stranger. It was me. Merely a finger shot off.

Then the chief editor went on with his erasure; and interlineations. Just as he finished them a hand grenade came down the stove-pipe, and the explosion shivered the stove into a thousand fragments. However, it did no further damage, except that a vagrant piece knocked a couple of my teeth out.

"That stove is utterly ruined," said the chief editor.

I said I believed it was.

"Well, no matter--don't want it this kind of weather. I know the man that did it. I'll get him. Now, here is the way this stuff ought to be written."

I took the manuscript. It was scarred with erasures and interlineations till its mother wouldn't have known it if it had had one. It now read as follows:

SPIRIT OF THE TENNESSEE PRESS

The inveterate liars of the Semi-Weekly Earthquake are evidently endeavoring to palm off upon a noble and chivalrous people another of their vile and brutal falsehoods with regard to that most glorious conception of the nineteenth century, the Ballyhack railroad. The idea that Buzzardville was to be left off at one side originated in their own fulsome brains--or rather in the settlings which they regard as brains. They had better, swallow this lie if they want to save their abandoned reptile carcasses the cowhiding they so richly deserve.

That ass, Blossom, of the Higginsville Thunderbolt and Battle Cry of Freedom, is down here again sponging at the Van Buren.

We observe that the besotted blackguard of the Mud Springs Morning Howl is giving out, with his usual propensity for lying, that Van Werter is not elected. The heaven-born mission of journalism is to disseminate truth; to eradicate error; to educate, refine, and elevate the tone of public morals and manners, and make all men more gentle, more virtuous, more charitable, and in all ways better, and holier, and happier; and yet this blackhearted scoundrel degrades his great office persistently to the dissemination of falsehood, calumny, vituperation, and vulgarity.

Blathersville wants a Nicholson pavement--it wants a jail and a poorhouse more. The idea of a pavement in a one-horse town composed of two gin-mills, a blacksmith shop, and that mustard-plaster of a newspaper, the Daily Hurrah! The crawling insect, Buckner, who edits the Hurrah, is braying about his business with his customary imbecility, and imagining that he is talking sense.

"Now that is the way to write--peppery and to the point. Mush-and-milk journalism gives me the fan-tods."

About this time a brick came through the window with a splintering crash, and gave me a considerable of a jolt in the back. I moved out of range --I began to feel in the way.

The chief said, "That was the Colonel, likely. I've been expecting him for two days. He will be up now right away."

He was correct. The Colonel appeared in the door a moment afterward with a dragoon revolver in his hand.

He said, "Sir, have I the honor of addressing the poltroon who edits this mangy sheet?"

"You have. Be seated, sir. Be careful of the chair, one of its legs is gone. I believe I have the honor of addressing the putrid liar, Colonel Blatherskite Tecumseh?"

"Right, Sir. I have a little account to settle with you. If you are at leisure we will begin."

"I have an article on the 'Encouraging Progress of Moral and Intellectual Development in America' to finish, but there is no hurry. Begin."

Both pistols rang out their fierce clamor at the same instant. The chief lost a lock of his hair, and the Colonel's bullet ended its career in the fleshy part of my thigh. The Colonel's left shoulder was clipped a little. They fired again. Both missed their men this time, but I got my share, a shot in the arm. At the third fire both gentlemen were wounded slightly, and I had a knuckle chipped. I then said, I believed I would go out and take a walk, as this was a private matter, and I had a delicacy about participating in it further. But both gentlemen begged me to keep my seat, and assured me that I was not in the way.

They then talked about the elections and the crops while they reloaded, and I fell to tying up my wounds. But presently they opened fire again with animation, and every shot took effect--but it is proper to remark that five out of the six fell to my share. The sixth one mortally wounded the Colonel, who remarked, with fine humor, that he would have to say good morning now, as he had business uptown. He then inquired the way to the undertaker's and left.

The chief turned to me and said, "I am expecting company to dinner, and shall have to get ready. It will be a favor to me if you will read proof and attend to the customers."

I winced a little at the idea of attending to the customers, but I was too bewildered by the fusillade that was still ringing in my ears to think of anything to say.

He continued, "Jones will be here at three--cowhide him. Gillespie will call earlier, perhaps--throw him out of the window. Ferguson will be along about four--kill him. That is all for today, I believe. If you have any odd time, you may write a blistering article on the police--give the chief inspector rats. The cowhides are under the table; weapons in the drawer--ammunition there in the corner--lint and bandages up there in the pigeonholes. In case of accident, go to Lancet, the surgeon, down- stairs. He advertises--we take it out in trade."

He was gone. I shuddered. At the end of the next three hours I had been through perils so awful that all peace of mind and all cheerfulness were gone from me. Gillespie had called and thrown me out of the window. Jones arrived promptly, and when I got ready to do the cowhiding he took the job off my hands. In an encounter with a stranger, not in the bill of fare, I had lost my scalp. Another stranger, by the name of Thompson, left me a mere wreck and ruin of chaotic rags. And at last, at bay in the corner, and beset by an infuriated mob of editors, blacklegs, politicians, and desperadoes, who raved and swore and flourished their weapons about my head till the air shimmered with glancing flashes of steel, I was in the act of resigning my berth on the paper when the chief arrived, and with him a rabble of charmed and enthusiastic friends. Then ensued a scene of riot and carnage such as no human pen, or steel one either, could describe. People were shot, probed, dismembered, blown up, thrown out of the window. There was a brief tornado of murky blasphemy, with a confused and frantic war-dance glimmering through it, and then all was over. In five minutes there was silence, and the gory chief and I sat alone and surveyed the sanguinary ruin that strewed the floor around us.

He said, "You'll like this place when you get used to it."

I said, "I'll have to get you to excuse me; I think maybe I might write to suit you after a while; as soon as I had had some practice and learned the language I am confident I could. But, to speak the plain truth, that sort of energy of expression has its inconveniences, and a, man is liable to interruption.

"You see that yourself. Vigorous writing is calculated to elevate the public, no doubt, but then I do not like to attract so much attention as it calls forth. I can't write with comfort when I am interrupted so much as I have been to-day. I like this berth well enough, but I don't like to be left here to wait on the customers. The experiences are novel, I grant you, and entertaining, too, after a fashion, but they are not judiciously distributed. A gentleman shoots at you through the window and cripples me; a bombshell comes down the stovepipe for your gratification and sends the stove door down my throat; a friend drops in to swap compliments with you, and freckles me with bullet-holes till my skin won't hold my principles; you go to dinner, and Jones comes with his cowhide, Gillespie throws me out of the window, Thompson tears all my clothes off, and an entire stranger takes my scalp with the easy freedom of an old acquaintance; and in less than five minutes all the blackguards in the country arrive in their war-paint, and proceed to scare the rest of me to death with their tomahawks. Take it altogether, I never had such a spirited time in all my life as I have had to-day. No; I like you, and I like your calm unruffled way of explaining things to the customers, but you see I am not used to it. The Southern heart is too impulsive; Southern hospitality is too lavish with the stranger. The paragraphs which I have written to-day, and into whose cold sentences your masterly hand has infused the fervent spirit of Tennesseean journalism, will wake up another nest of hornets. All that mob of editors will come--and they will come hungry, too, and want somebody for breakfast. I shall have to bid you adieu. I decline to be present at these festivities. I came South for my health, I will go back on the same errand, and suddenly. Tennesseean journalism is too stirring for me."

After which we parted with mutual regret, and I took apartments at the hospital.

---

And that, my friends, is media bias. Out in the open, the way it should be.

He's Not a Muslim; He's a Dhimmi

I'll start right off by saying that the man in this video, Pat Condell, doesn't understand Christianity -- although he's reacting to the usual vain interpretations of it (as in, taking God's name in vain). So why would he understand Islam any better? Actually, I think he understands Islamic extremism about as well as he understands vain Christianity, which is quite a lot, really.

The point that really hit home though, was his take on the notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim. No, Obama's a dhimmi. I think Pat nails it.

My mother always used to say, "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all". I feel like I've been dumping on President Obama awfully hard lately. But here's the thing: When someone is enslaving you and your children, you have to speak up. Some things just override the basic rules of etiquette.

Romney's Foreign Policy

We're all familiar with President Obama's foreign policy. Here's Romney's, in his address to the Virginia Military Institute on October 8:

The video is doing some weird things to his face.

I Hope They Don't Vote!

Obama Roast

Mitt Romney addresses the attendees of the Alfred. E. Smith dinner.

Update: Obama roasts himself:

These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For

Bill Whittle strikes again. With all due credit to Knowledge is Power, I schlep this video:

What "Just Happened"?

Nobody wants to face it, but there's a lot of really bad stuff showing up about president Obama, and it is way more than mere partisan rhetoric. This is bad. Really bad. Impeach-ably bad. In his post, Can it all be Coincidence? this blogger goes on for pages. Here's a taste:

(Oct. 1, 2012) — As I noted in the introduction to my book, The Obama Timeline, a jury at a murder trial will often find the accumulated circumstantial evidence so overwhelming that a guilty verdict is obvious—even though there may be no witness to the crime. “The jurors in the Scott Peterson trial believed the collection of evidence more than they believed Scott Peterson. Among other things, the jury thought that being arrested with $15,000 in cash, recently-dyed hair, a newly-grown goatee, four cell phones, camping equipment, a map to a new girlfriend’s house, a gun, and his brother’s driver’s license certainly did not paint a picture of a grieving husband who had nothing to do with his pregnant wife’s disappearance and murder.”

In the four years I have been gathering information about—and evidence against—Barack Hussein Obama, I have encountered hundreds of coincidences that strike me as amazing. None of those coincidences, by themselves, may mean much. But taken as a whole it is almost impossible to believe they were all the result of chance. Consider the Obama-related coincidences:

Obama just happened to know 60s far-left radical revolutionary William Ayers, whose father just happened to be Thomas Ayers, who just happened to be a close friend of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who just happened to work at the communist-sympathizing Chicago Defender with Vernon Jarrett, who just happened to later become the father-in-law of Iranian-born leftist Valerie Jarrett, who Obama just happened to choose as his closest White House advisor, and who just happened to have been CEO of Habitat Company, which just happened to manage public housing in Chicago, which just happened to get millions of dollars from the Illinois state legislature, and which just happened not to properly maintain the housing—which eventually just happened to require demolition. (Continue reading...)

 Then, there's this over at Hill Buzz, about President Obama's debate performance:

10. Obama was injected with amphetamines or something before the debate and they wore off about 20 minutes in.  Here in Chicago, word on the street for the last month has been that Valerie Jarrett was specifically tasked with getting Obama off coke and other drugs before the debates so that he would not embarrass himself on stage for an hour and a half.  So, word is that Obama’s been detoxing since at least September.  This explains how haggard he’s looked and how prickly he’s acted for a while now…it’s what addicts look and act like when they’re cut off from their drugs.  Remember that a President can have whatever drugs he wants.  The Secret Service are not there to keep the president from breaking the law, they are just there to keep him alive.  Obama’s main drug suppliers are the junior staffers who work in the White House who go to Lafayette Park and buy him whatever he wants…and he also gets special deliveries from his friend Bobby Titcombe in Hawaii, who brings him “fish and poi” to the White House (that’s Hawaiian slang for “weed and coke”).  To get through the almost two hours of being on TV, Obama looks like he needed a big injection of beta-blockers and/or amphetamines.  If you noticed at the beginning of the debate he was talking fast, acting erratic, and blinking like CRAZY he was still jazzed up by whatever they gave him.  About twenty minutes later, it seems like the adrenaline in his system from being in front of the crowd might have caused the uppers to wear off…and his energy levels collapsed after that.  By the end of the debate, Obama looked like he was aching for a new fix.  This could be the reason Michelle Obama rushed him off stage and skipped the traditional “let’s waive to the crowd for a while” schtick. She could tell he needed to get out of sight because he totally lost it out there. (Read the entire top ten...)

I decided not to post the "Down Low" bath house article linked by Drudge yesterday. It was just too sordid. You can Google it if you want. And, I haven't fact checked everything in these articles, but didn't anyone else notice something was wrong? The emperor has no clothes! I have never been a fan of Barack Hussein Obama, but this goes beyond principled political differences. There is something seriously wrong with this man, and it just keeps getting more and more disturbing.

If this was Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen, or Paris Hilton, it would be one thing. It's their life. But this is the most powerful position in the free world (note that I didn't say most powerful man -- he isn't). He must be stopped. This is getting too weird. 

What Romney Should Have Said

Yesterday evening Governor Romney and President Obama met for their first debate. The talking heads seem to be in agreement, that Mitt Romney "won" the debate last night. That just proves that the talking heads are part of the Kakistocracy. Unprincipled, they don't get it. I think early on in the debate, Romney should have said,

Mr. President, Mr. Lehrer, I realize there is a section later in the debate about the role of government, but everything we talk about tonight hinges on the proper role of government. 

We have two principal documents that define how the American form of government works: The Declaration of Independence, which says that our rights come from nature, or nature's God, and not from government. And to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just authority from the consent of the governed. The US Constitution defines that government, and any regime that distorts or disregards it is untrustworthy and dangerous. 

For every policy, entitlement or regulation that we discuss tonight, we must ask ourselves, "Which article of The Constitution gives government the authority to do that?" If the answer is, "none", then it can't be done by the federal government. Maybe by the states, if it's compatible with their founding documents, or by local government. But the best solution of all would be private individuals working together voluntarily to create jobs, goods and services, and taking care of the less fortunate, one person, one charity at a time. Because government redistribution of wealth, taking someone's earnings and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it (even if they need it), is legalized theft. There are better ways for people to help the needy, privately and voluntarily. Government entitlements actively undermine private charity. 

Later on, when discussing health care, Obama kept saying people were "at the mercy" of big insurance companies. Romney should have said,

Mr. President, are you saying it's better to be "at the mercy" of government? Because I for one, would prefer to be "at the mercy" of someone with whom I can voluntarily sever my relationship. Someone who cannot force me to buy what they're selling. 

In reality, everyone (including government) is "at the mercy" of the law of supply and demand. That's economics 101. You cannot govern against the law of supply and demand any more than you can govern against the law of gravity. Government is bound to fail whenever it attempts to govern against nature -- including human nature. How can you tell you've failed? When you break economic laws, you get huge deficits, high unemployment, and eventually, high inflation. Don't govern against economic laws. 

That's what Romney should have said. He would have batted it right out of the park. With me, anyway. As it was, Romney won by default.

MoveOn Dot Org Propaganda

A friend forwarded me an email from MoveOn.org. It goes like this:

Dear MoveOn member,

In every campaign, there is a turning point, and Mitt Romney's 47% speech may be it.

A hidden camera caught Mitt Romney telling his rich donors that nearly half our country—47% of Americans—are freeloaders mooching off the government:

"My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

People everywhere are outraged and offended. This is a HUGE opportunity to persuade undecided voters that Romney is the wrong choice for president. There's no shortcut—we need to get as many volunteers as possible in swing states talking to voters about Romney's comments right away.

They think this is Romney's bitter clingers moment? That's weak. Hey MoveOn propagandist: freeloaders mooching off the government is your term. But Mitt Romney is right. The takers will not go for Romney's message of responsibility and self-reliance, but the producers will. We're still the 53%!

Here is the full text of Mitt Romney's statement:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

What part of that statement is offensive to hard working producers? What part of that statement is not offensive to moochers and takers? Let the voting begin!

Thanks to Maddie for sending me this.

Zing!

In an interview yesterday, Barack Hussein Obama said,

The fact that we haven't been able to change the tone in Washington is disappointing. The most important lesson I've learned is you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside.

Upon hearing that, Mitt Romney quipped,

The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again. He said he can’t change Washington from inside, he can only change it from outside. Well, we’re going to give him that chance in November. He’s going outside!

I hope he doesn't let the screen door hit him in the keister on the way out.

Mocking Mormons: OK; Mocking Muslims: Bad

In and article in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens says, 

So let's get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it's because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons. (Read more...)

It does look like a double standard, doesn't it?

We Are the 53 Percent!

A friend sent me something he received via email:

Here's some food for thought: Barack Hussein Obama was raised by a single mother -- government assistance; he went to college -- government loans; he worked on projects in Chicago -- government paid; became a senator -- government paid; became president -- government paid, and he will retire with a government pension. This man has depended on government assistance his entire life, and the Democrats are criticizing Mitt Romney for saying that 47% of our population depends on the government to support them. Go figure. Just my own thoughts. I wish I could let the country be aware of my thoughts.

The thing that the Democrats have their panties in a twist about is where Mitt Romney went on to say, "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Even though he explains what he means by "not to worry", the Dems are trying to twist his words into not caring about the disadvantaged. Of course anyone with a functioning CPU (brain) understands that he means not to concern himself with convincing them -- which he says in the very same breath. Duh.

What are the odds that he will convince the takers that they are not entitled to your earnings? They've been told all their lives that they are! They've been indoctrinated with the idea that keeping what you earn is selfish. I think taking what someone else earns is more selfish, although I do believe in charity. I just don't think it's government's job to be in the charity business, or to redistribute the wealth. Wealth redistributes itself! Government can only interfere with the process. 

Thanks to Rogers for the email.

Nouns Are Labels

a well-known label

A few of us were discussing a local politician's claim that he doesn't like to "apply labels". Well, we all label things! That’s what nouns are for. They speed up the conversations by assigning a name to something, instead of having to describe it every time we  want to talk about it: house, car, dog, cat, black, white, racist, homophobe, islamophobe, bigot, liar.

The only time labels are a bad thing is when they are used to deceive. For example, calling someone a liar when they are merely mistaken (e.g., WMD’s in Iraq); calling someone a racist when we criticize the political principles of a man who happens to be black; calling someone a homophobe when we object to someone’s lifestyle; calling someone an islamophobe when we criticize a demonstrably toxic culture and belief system. When labels are used to suppress important topics of discussion, instead of to facilitate debate, then they're bad.

Sometimes people deliberately mis-label themselves: “Progressives” embraced Marxism and communism in the first half of the 20th century. Their principles were strongly repudiated during WWII, and so they rebranded themselves as “Liberals”, which is nearly the exact opposite of what they really are: Illiberals. The founders were liberals, but because the ‘progressives’ hijacked the word “liberal”, we now have to call the founders and their present day followers “classical liberals”. The word “libertarian” almost nails it, except that the “Libertarian” party has sullied that name, because they have a few pretty wacky beliefs too.

Labels are fine as long as we define our terms honestly. Labels are a shorthand for big concepts.

Kakistocracy Report

Hello fellow anti-kakistocrats, this post is to announce that I am changing the name of this blog from "Rage Against the Kakistocracy" to "Kakistocracy Report". I mean, who needs all that rage, anyway? The Islamists are all enraged, and look where that's getting them. Occupy Wall Street are all enraged, and look where that's getting them. I don't need all that rage. My blood pressure is high enough already. I think "Kakistocracy Report" is pithier and easier to remember. It's not as grumpy.

I had originally modeled the name after the musical group, "Rage Against the Machine". I replaced "Machine" with "Kakistocracy", which I imagined to be equivalent, even though the original band members were raging against capitalism and the American work ethic. It was my way of getting even. There was a parody act who called himself, "Lounge Against the Machine". Maybe "Lounge Against the Kakistocracy" would work too. Some other names I considered include, "Kakistocracy Retort" and "Kakistocracy Update" (K.U., get it? My initials). Too clever by half, I decided. "Kakistocracy Report" it is. Same bat time, same bat channel (http://antikakistocrat.blogspot.com).

Gun Sales Hinge on Obama Re-Election

A Wall Street Journal article has the headline, "Gun Sales Hinge on Obama Re-Election".

As Cabela's Inc. prepares the selection of guns it will sell for the holiday season and winter hunting, the outdoor-gear retailer has two plans: one if President Barack Obama is re-elected, and one if he isn't.

The Sidney, Neb.-based retailer and other companies in the guns-and-ammo business say if Mr. Obama wins a second term they are preparing for a surge in sales—the same as they saw after he was elected in 2008—from buyers fearful the president would back policies to make buying a gun more difficult. If Republican challenger Mitt Romney wins, though, the chain plans to stock more items such as waterproof boots and camouflage hunting gear. (Continue reading...)

So there you have it folks. If you're truly interested in reducing gun ownership, you need to vote for Romney, the boots and camo guy.

Obamanation

People have been forwarding in email, an interactive rendition of Barack Hussein Obama's  kakistocratic  presidential legacy. The painting, called "Obamanation" was created by the McNaughton Fine Art Company. I wouldn't call it fine art, exactly, but it is informative art. Hover your mouse over each shameful scene to read a description of the transgression.

I suppose the 'progressives' or the communists could make a similar painting, celebrating the choomster's "shining achievements" but I would probably would consider them shameful usurpation as well (e.g., ObamaCare). 

Responsibility Bites

Pick Up Another Case of Government While You're Out!

How much government would you purchase if it was at your discretion? It's like, "Hey honey, while you're at the mall, would you pick up another case of government? 'Cause I just can't get enough! I'm up to like three packs a day."

Pick any government project or program. Then ask yourself, "If I had to pay for this with my own money", (because you do), "would I buy this?" If the answer is no, then you need to tell your representatives to vote no. If they're representing you, that would be your vote, right?

It doesn't matter if it's a new sidewalk (nice to have), or that ginormous park that's in competition for funds with a much needed county jail. You might have the money to spare, but not all taxpayers do. And every level of government is in such a financial crisis that they really should be asking the tough questions even about legitimate government functions. But they're not, are they?

Rare Photo of Karl Marx with Barack Obama

Karl Marx (left), Barack Obama (right)

Honey, You Didn't Build That

These are the kind of hip parents that I bet every child wishes she had. Just as hip as choom-gangster Barack Hussein Obama, in fact.

"Did you make those Popsicle sticks?" That reminds me of Milton Friedman's treatise about free enterprise and making pencils.

Of course we didn't build all the components of our enterprise! We stand on the shoulders of giants. If government built some of the things we use to live our daily lives, save for a few exceptions, it is mainly because government has usurped the freedom and sapped the initiative for individuals to do it themselves.

The "You didn't build that" speech could easily be the stupidest thing that Barack Hussein Obama ever said. Stupid on its face, and stupid from a tactical standpoint. I can't think of anything that would raise the righteous indignation of the productive members of our society more than a preposterous statement like that one. Hey, choomster, even if we didn't build that personally, our taxes certainly did. My fair share, indeed. You're welcome, idiot.

Thanks to Lorraine for sending me the video.

All Your Government Are Belong To Us

This DNC video claims, "Government is the only thing that we all belong to".

Wrong-o, bucko! You have that exactly backwards. We don't belong to government; government belongs to us. We the People own the government. To secure our unalienable rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Government is not an instrument of conformity, entitlement or dependency.

The Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they don't understand, or that they reject this principle. Abraham Lincoln's Republican party used to understand this, and if the tea parties remain true to our mission, we might restore some of those values to our political parties. I certainly hope so.

I have news for you statists out there: All your government are belong to us!

Chuck Norris Warning for 2012

Chuck Norris notes that evangelical Christians were absent from the 2008 election in large numbers. If they had all voted, Barack Obama might not have been elected in 2008.

Make My Election Day

In honor of Empty Chair Day (not Labor Day, which I most assuredly do not celebrate), I made this sculpture in my front yard.

Make My Election Day